Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Appaji @ Basavaraj vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|14 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4866/2019 Between:
Appaji @ Basavaraj, S/o Durgaiah, Aged about 31 years, R/at Kanchanahalli Village, Sathnur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District – 562 120. ... Petitioner (By Miss. K.Raksha Keerthana for Sri. Kemparaju, Advocates) And:
State of Karnataka, By Sathanur Police Station, Ramanagara District.
Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.61/2019 of Sathnoor P.S., Ramanagara for the offence P/U/S 376 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
2. Perused the records.
3. The respondent-police have registered a case in Crime No.61/19 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case are that the victim girl aged 19 years lodged a complaint stating that prior to her marriage the accused persuaded her to marry him and in that context they developed physical intimacy. Thereafter the accused/petitioner assured her that he would marry her. However parents of the victim fixed her marriage with some other person. Victim has intimated the same to the accused and he assured that before the date of the marriage, he would marry her. In spite of that he did not take her and the marriage of the victim was conducted with other person and she started living with her husband. Even after 3 days of the marriage, again he persuaded her to continue physical relationship with him. Accordingly she continued physical relationship with him and became pregnant. Thereafter this matter came to the knowledge of the family of her husband and they forced her to divorce her husband. Accordingly she gave divorce. But in spite of all these things petitioner has not married her and on these allegations she lodged the complaint before the police.
5. The nature of allegations and facts of the case discloses that there is physical intimacy even before and after marriage of the victim girl with other person. At that time the victim was aged about 19 years and was capable of taking decision. Whether the victim developed physical intimacy with the petitioner on her volition or the petitioner persuaded her to have physical relationship on the pretext of marrying her, has to be thrashed out during the full dressed trial. Whether she was a consenting party is a decisive factor to come to the conclusion that whether the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC is attracted or not. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner having been arrested on 25.5.2019 and has been in judicial custody since then, therefore considering the above said factual aspects the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on conditions. Hence the following:
O R D E R The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.61/2019 of Sathnoor Police Station pending on the file of 1ST Additional Civil (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Kanakapura registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like- sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
RS/* CT-SN Sd/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Appaji @ Basavaraj vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
14 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra